MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405099234 · doi:10.22215/etd/2024-16171

Unruly Practices: Prefigurative Aspirations and the Radical Imagination in the Occupy Movement in Canada

2024· dissertation· en· W4405099234 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda Anne Joy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Theory and Political Philosophy
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)PoliticsSocial movementField (mathematics)Movement (music)SociologyArgument (complex analysis)Political sciencePolitical radicalismInclusion (mineral)Participant observationGender studiesAestheticsSocial scienceLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation examines the 2011 Occupy movement in Canada, with a focus on internal movement dynamics and the experience of participation in three Canadian cities: Ottawa, Toronto, and Edmonton.Occupy's primary tactic was the occupation of both public and privately-owned spaces through encampments, and as such Occupy was both a protest and also a space where people created temporary communities and activist hubs.A central argument of this thesis is that the movement's primary focus was the creation, enactment, and reproduction of practices within the encampments, rather than a strategic approach to achieving set goals.These practices were continually debated, reworked, and adjusted over the course of the movement.The concept of the radical imagination is used to conceptualize how movement actors imagine and enact a prefigurative politics, and how this prefigurative tendency played out in the movement's efforts to make decisions, develop collective knowledge, and work out its principles and practices regarding safety and inclusion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCritical Theory and Political PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207